Asim Posted June 1, 2013 Posted June 1, 2013 India is "regressive for women" and a "depressing" place to be, says Mallika Sherawat. She was speaking at the 66th Cannes International Film Festival to The Variety Studio's Steve Gaydos. "I made a conscious decision to divide my time between LA and India. When I enjoy the social freedom in America and go back to India, which is so regressive for women, it's depressing," she says.
zumi Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 There were so many lies in her interview. for one, claiming to be the first Indian woman to lip kiss on the silver screen. nevertheless her idea of social freedom for women seems more about tits and legs rather than women empowerment through education, jobs, justice, etc.
ravishingravi Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 "Mallika Sherawat recently gave an interview at Cannes. It’s kind of news I guess because, after all, who interviews Mallika nowadays? Well in case you haven’t seen it, I encourage you to do so , particularly if you need a good laugh. (And come on, who doesn’t?). Since it is very difficult to remember what she said, after the few minutes you spend laughing or cringing, let me summarize her main thesis—- “India is regressive, I am very progressive” with the subtext being that she is victimized because of her progressiveness. Why does she claim to be progressive? Because she was the first person to kiss and first person to wear a bikini. Once you can go beyond her accent, which is as authentic as a Chandila over, and her creative liberties with truth (Devika Rani has kissed on screen in the 30s and Nalini Jayawant wore two pieces in the 50s [pics]), you can get to the core of what she is saying. That somehow kissing and exposing skin is “progressiveness”. Here is the short retort. It is NOT. Let’s forget India for a while and just look at the Hindi film industry, since it fairly accurately captures the way a large part of rolls. Yes. Hindi films are regressive. They are regressive for many reasons, none of which is as glaring as its treatment of women. This regressiveness is ingrained in the very way most movies are made—directors sit at the feet of big-name male stars, listen to what kind of movies they want to do (“Mujhe ek comedy chahiye ab, aajkal action waise chal nahee raha hai, plus my orthopedic surgeon told me to take it easy for a year”), come up with scripts (originality optional and frankly, looked down upon), the star okays it, the financiers then line up and then, the heroine is chosen, often “recommended” by the male-movie-star. Even though she is technically also headlining the film, her pay will be a fraction of what the male superhero gets. Why? Because she is a not central to the commercial viability of the movie in any way, (except perhaps her dance steps in the obligatory item-number), her role being to just establish the hero’s machismo. That’s why she has little bargaining power, exchangeable as she is, with minimum fuss, by another warm body. Given that this is the status quo, choosing to kiss or choosing to show that part of your body which no woman has shown before (assuming for argument’s sake that Mallika was the first person to do this) is hardly progressive. As a matter of fact, it strengthens the established stereotypes regarding the role of women in commercial cinema, namely titillating male audiences. The reason I deem fit to even blog about the Mallika video is this. Its bad that women have to show skin in order to be in the game. Its even worse when the word “bold” is tagged on to it, as if boldness and progressiveness is measured by square-inch of female skin exposure, no matter how neanderthal the narrative may be. In Mallika’s defense, this association is not her making. This “mera film bahoot bold hain” is a line as old as the hills, used by countless film-makers to justify the use of “jawaani” in their movies even though their themes even Aurangzeb may consider medieval. And it’s a line whose hypocrisy needs to be called out. It’s worth mentioning that there have been women in the Hindi film industry, who have tried, with various degrees of success, to not play the stereotype—the Nandita Das-s, the Konkonas and the Vidya Balans. If they say that their careers have suffered because they were “different” and independent, I can buy that. Just that when the star of “Bach ke rahena re baba“, who feeds into and feeds from the same regressive culture of films without ever making any attempt to do something different, pulls out the martyr card, I find it rather laughable, if not slightly offensive, if only for the way it trivializes those who truly try to be progressive in the extant commercial set-up." http://greatbong.net/2013/05/30/regressiveness/ Factually incorrect and retarded comments by washed up attention wh**e. I think this is good retort to put it in perspective.
JourneyMan Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 It's cute that she's trying to have an intelligent opinion, unfortunately her general understanding of the world is around the same level as her talent in acting. The role of the woman in the Indian economy is something that not many nations can match. Even today in the 21st century, if you go to the engineering faculties of the best universities you struggle to spot the few females. Even then, a significant amount of them are NRIs or Indian students abroad. Similarly, if you look at agriculture (other end of the spectrum altogether) you still see male domination in the West, whereas in the Indian villages women are equally as active as the men. In politics, women have had much higher positions and much more of an influence in India at any one time than they have ever had in a place like the US who are yet to have a female president or vice president. While the women in the countries Sherawat looks up to have been reduced to eye candy and entertainment, in India they have chosen to expand their options and do more significant things with their lives.
Rocky Balboa Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 Mallika sherawat is a progressive woman. Isn't she?
DomainK Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 It's cute that she's trying to have an intelligent opinion, unfortunately her general understanding of the world is around the same level as her talent in acting. The role of the woman in the Indian economy is something that not many nations can match. Even today in the 21st century, if you go to the engineering faculties of the best universities you struggle to spot the few females. Even then, a significant amount of them are NRIs or Indian students abroad. Similarly, if you look at agriculture (other end of the spectrum altogether) you still see male domination in the West, whereas in the Indian villages women are equally as active as the men. In politics, women have had much higher positions and much more of an influence in India at any one time than they have ever had in a place like the US who are yet to have a female president or vice president. While the women in the countries Sherawat looks up to have been reduced to eye candy and entertainment, in India they have chosen to expand their options and do more significant things with their lives. Well said.
PriyankaSR Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 Her accent is regressive and depressing in that video.
EnterTheVoid Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 I don't want to be seen defending her but if her view is taken in the context of the gang rapes, there is *some* truth in what she is saying. The emphasis is on the context and the word *some*.
King Khan Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 It's cute that she's trying to have an intelligent opinion, unfortunately her general understanding of the world is around the same level as her talent in acting. The role of the woman in the Indian economy is something that not many nations can match. Even today in the 21st century, if you go to the engineering faculties of the best universities you struggle to spot the few females. Even then, a significant amount of them are NRIs or Indian students abroad. Similarly, if you look at agriculture (other end of the spectrum altogether) you still see male domination in the West, whereas in the Indian villages women are equally as active as the men. In politics, women have had much higher positions and much more of an influence in India at any one time than they have ever had in a place like the US who are yet to have a female president or vice president. While the women in the countries Sherawat looks up to have been reduced to eye candy and entertainment, in India they have chosen to expand their options and do more significant things with their lives. :nice: nicely said. 100% agree. It must be depressing not gaining much from her dim light career in bollywood even after lot of "boldness" she possess. :giggle:
someone Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 People like herself don't deserve platforms. She cannot be the ambassador of the country when she only goes there to boost her own profile and damage the country's image.
Crookbond Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 She's speaking the near truth. Now her basis of reasons may be misplaced but it is the truth indeed.
someone Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 She's speaking the near truth. Now her basis of reasons may be misplaced but it is the truth indeed. Irrespective of true or false, she should not have spoken that at that kind of platform. Only shows that she is selfish and went there only to promote entirely herself on how such a pretty girl has survived in a cruel country.
Crookbond Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 Irrespective of true or false' date=' [b']she should not have spoken that at that kind of platform. Only shows that she is selfish and went there only to promote entirely herself on how such a pretty girl has survived in a cruel country. Well that's a different debate. She may have done it for selfish reasons and she should not be made a martyr out of it but similarly I don't think we should shy away from the truth just because it has caused the country public embarrassment.
FischerTal Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 Well that's a different debate. She may have done it for selfish reasons and she should not be made a martyr out of it but similarly I don't think we should shy away from the truth just because it has caused the country public embarrassment. but compared to most women in India, she enjoys much more freedom because she's famous and priviliged. wouldnt you agree with that? this statement would hold more weight if it came from a housewife or a normal college going girl from delhi
G_B_ Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 It's cute that she's trying to have an intelligent opinion, unfortunately her general understanding of the world is around the same level as her talent in acting. The role of the woman in the Indian economy is something that not many nations can match. Even today in the 21st century, if you go to the engineering faculties of the best universities you struggle to spot the few females. Even then, a significant amount of them are NRIs or Indian students abroad. Similarly, if you look at agriculture (other end of the spectrum altogether) you still see male domination in the West, whereas in the Indian villages women are equally as active as the men. In politics, women have had much higher positions and much more of an influence in India at any one time than they have ever had in a place like the US who are yet to have a female president or vice president. While the women in the countries Sherawat looks up to have been reduced to eye candy and entertainment, in India they have chosen to expand their options and do more significant things with their lives. fully agree. I did computer engineering and there were 2 women class in the UK. The thing about india is there are two extremes. At the top women are better represented than the west. At the bottom they are treated worse than the west. So there are two paradoxical indias.
Crookbond Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 but compared to most women in India' date=' she enjoys much more freedom because she's famous and priviliged. wouldnt you agree with that? [b']this statement would hold more weight if it came from a housewife or a normal college going girl from delhi I am not here to comment on Mallika's acting or intellect or anything of that sort. My comment is on her observation of Indian women. For the bolded part - NO. The truth remains the truth and it's weight remains the same irrespective of the person speaking it - Hitler, Obama or Mallika Sherawat. The difference lies in the impact and credence of the spoken truth. It is much more easier to believe if it had come from a normal college going girl in Delhi. Ironically, Mallika Sherawat indeed was a normal college going girl in Delhi few years back. :--D
FischerTal Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 I am not here to comment on Mallika's acting or intellect or anything of that sort. My comment is on her observation of Indian women. For the bolded part - NO. The truth remains the truth and it's weight remains the same irrespective of the person speaking it - Hitler' date=' Obama or Mallika Sherawat. [b']The difference lies in the impact and credence of the spoken truth. It is much more easier to believe if it had come from a normal college going girl in Delhi. Ironically, Mallika Sherawat indeed was a normal college going girl in Delhi few years back. :--D i would say perception of the person making the statement plays a big role in how Indians, or for that part anyone, views somebody's statement and that also impacts whether they will agree with the person, whether it be Hitler, Obama, or Mallika :--D
Crookbond Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 i would say perception of the person making the statement plays a big role in how Indians' date=' or for that part anyone, views somebody's statement and that also impacts whether they will agree with the person, whether it be Hitler, Obama, or Mallika :--D[/quote'] Fair point and I actually agree to that. I was trying to say that it shouldn't as facts remain the same irrespective of who stands for it. The issue which I have is that in such circumstances people brush aside the facts just because it is spoken by someone with ulterior motives. Personally, I would take the content and evaluate the merits of it but I wouldn't allow the person speaking take part in the follow up. This would achieve both goals - the content spoke would be evaluated on its merit and the dubious person wouldn't be turned into a saint for it.
Recommended Posts